Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciated the gentleman from Florida's comments. He spent a great deal of time trying to compare Iraq to Afghanistan. I would remind my colleagues that Iraq and Afghanistan are very, very different countries, different cultures, different levels of education and a different history of centralized government. In Afghanistan, there is no tradition, there is no history of a centralized government. Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is not comparing apples to oranges. It's like comparing apples to Volkswagens. There is no comparison. And we could have a debate about Iraq, but that should be on a separate day, and we could talk about whether there were any weapons of mass destruction; but today we're here talking about Afghanistan. I think this is important, and it's an important discussion because this Congress, with the exception of a few amendments that got very little time, has not had a debate or a discussion in this Chamber on Afghanistan since after September 11, 2001. And our policy has changed in a number of different ways over those years, and we still have not had a debate or a discussion on Afghanistan. So today, hopefully, we will. And my hope is that in this Chamber, where lots of Members talk all the time and very few Members listen, that this may be a day for Members to listen. It is important that we get this right, especially for the men and women who we have deployed over there. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1146 provides for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 248, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. The rule provides 3 hours of general debate in the House, with 90 minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich and 90 minutes controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution and provides that the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day, and an important debate, in the House of representatives. Last summer, I had the privilege of traveling to Afghanistan and meeting with our brave troops. They are an incredible group of people, proud of their accomplishments, thoughtful and candid about the challenges that confront them. They deserve to know that we are thinking about them and do not take their lives or their fate for granted. It has been far too long since Congress had a full and open debate on the issue of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. In 2001, I voted, along with the vast majority of my colleagues, to go after the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. I believe we must have a comprehensive strategy to counter the global threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates, no matter where they are in the world-- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, North Africa, and elsewhere. But I also believe that we have serious challenges right here at home. Millions of Americans are out of work. Our economy is just now beginning to emerge from the worst recession in decades. Our schools, our health care, our tax code, our infrastructure--all must be updated for the 21st century if we are to create a better America. Mr. Speaker, the war in Afghanistan has cost U.S. taxpayers well over $200 billion--none of it paid for. None of it paid for. All of that money has been added on to our debt. And those costs will continue to rise as we fund increasing troop levels and provide the necessary care to our veterans when they return home. Our policy has drastically changed in those 8 years. We are no longer just going after the bad guys. We are engaged in a massive ``nation-building'' effort in Afghanistan. Now, I certainly don't believe we should abandon the Afghan people. But instead of nation-building in Afghanistan, I'd like to do some more nation-building here at home. Our allies in Afghanistan, the Karzai government, do not inspire confidence. The recent election there was characterized by widespread fraud and corruption. Just 10 days ago, Mr. Karzai unilaterally rewrote the election law to ensure that he can handpick the members of the election monitoring commission that oversees voting irregularities. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop. Over 1,000 U.S. servicemen and women have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan. Over 670 more lives have been lost by our NATO military allies. Thousands more have been wounded, many severely, in ways that will affect the rest of their lives. Suicide and post-traumatic stress among our troops and veterans continue to increase at alarming rates. Mr. Speaker, last summer I authored an amendment to require the administration to develop an exit strategy for our military involvement in Afghanistan. While my amendment did not carry the day, I believe it demonstrated to the administration that an open-ended commitment was not sustainable. As we know, President Obama outlined such a strategy in his speech at West Point. And I believe it is essential that we in the Congress work to keep the administration to its word. We must fulfill our constitutional responsibilities by making sure that taxpayer funds are spent wisely and with complete accountability and transparency for every dime and every dollar. No more Halliburton and Blackwater scandals. No more projects where fat-cat middlemen walk off with all the money while the Afghan people go without hospitals, schools, roads, or food. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this is just the first--not the last--debate that we have on the House floor this year over our policy in Afghanistan. The issue is simply too important. The future at stake is too grave. We have sacrificed too much--in the lives and well-being of our soldiers, in the cost to our economy--to wait another year or 2 or 3 for Congress to do its job. We must continue to ask the hard questions and demand straight answers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1146.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1146 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deepest sorrow and outrage at the death of Cuban dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo. Imprisoned since 2003, he had been on a hunger strike for several weeks. He first heard he was seriously ill last week, and yesterday, he died at the prison clinic. Zapata Tamayo paid the ultimate sacrifice for his commitment to changing Cuba's system. He commands our respect. No one has starved himself to death in a Cuban prison in over 40 years. Surely, the Cuban Government could have and should have intervened earlier to have prevented this tragedy. His death is on their conscience. I have always felt and continue to believe that, if we are truly going to do a better job of standing with the Cuban people, then we need to be closer to them and in greater numbers. We need to travel freely to the island to meet and to learn from them and they from us. I hope that day comes soon so we can tell all of the Cuban people that we remember the sacrifice of Orlando Zapata Tamayo. [From the Washington Post] Activists: Cuba Dissident Dies After Hunger Strike Havana--An opposition political activist imprisoned since 2003 died Tuesday after a lengthy hunger strike, members of Cuba's human rights community said. Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who was jailed on charges including disrespecting authority, died at a clinic at Havana's Combinado del Este prison, according to Vladimiro Roca, a leading dissident who said he spoke to Zapata Tamayo's family. Zapata Tamayo, 42, was not among the island's best-known dissidents. He was arrested in 2003 on charges of disrespecting authority, said Elizardo Sanchez, head of the Havana-based, independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which Sanchez said was lengthened to 25 years, in part because of his political activism while behind bars. Sanchez said Zapata Tamayo staged a hunger strike for weeks before his death. His family first announced last week that prison doctors said he was gravely ill. Relatives were transporting Zapata Tamayo's remains to his hometown in Holguin province, said Roca, a former fighter pilot and son of a legendary communist leader who served nearly five years in prison himself for his opposition political beliefs. Word of Zapata Tamayo's death was first reported on Cuban exile radio stations in southern Florida, which broadcast an interview with his mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Republican from Florida--and the nephew of Fidel Castro's ex-wife, Mirta Diaz-Balart--said on the floor of the U.S. Congress on Tuesday that the dissident's ``condition and fate are the Castro brothers' doing.'' Hours later, as news of Zapata Tamayo's death spread, the congressman issued a second statement declaring that his ``murder by the tyrant Fidel Castro and his cowardly jailers will never be forgotten.'' U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, of Florida, said in his own statement that ``freedom-loving people everywhere should hold the Cuban regime responsible for the fate of Orlando Zapata Tamayo.'' ``His reported death today is a sad reminder of the tragic cost of oppression and a dictatorship that devalues human life,'' Nelson said. Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, also of Florida, noted that Amnesty International declared Zapata Tamayo a ``prisoner of conscience'' in 2003. ``The Cuban government's stunning lack of respect for human rights was highlighted by Orlando as much in his life as in his death,'' Meek said in a statement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 1 minute. Before I yield to our last speaker, let me again just remind my colleagues what this debate is about. It is about whether we should pay as we go. That is what families do. That is what we should do here. I don't know why that's a radical idea in the Republican Conference, but it's the responsible thing to do. My friends on the other side are responsible for creating this economic mess. They should share that responsibility with us now to get this economy out of the ditch. And one final thing, Madam Speaker, trying to balance the budget by going after Social Security and Medicare is the wrong way to go. These are important programs that provide important benefits, mostly to our senior citizens, and we should not allow them to wither on the vine and be subject to a Republican budget that would basically take a meat-ax to those programs. That is the wrong way to go.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, again, I would remind my colleagues that we are facing tough times, but tough times require tough decisions. And statutory pay-as-you-go to basically pay our way is the responsible thing. We can't keep on adding to our deficits and to our debt. We have responsibility to our kids and our grandkids. I would ask my Republican colleagues to join with us. If they don't want to do it, then I guess we will have to do the responsible thing on our own. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule. I yield the remaining time to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I again inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, we have had an enlightening debate here today, and I guess the difference between Democrats and Republicans couldn't be clearer and this debate couldn't come at a better time. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we should balance the budget by going after Medicare and Social Security. They introduced an alternative budget in the Budget Committee. It's there in black and white. It's easy to understand. No one denies it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who was on the floor earlier was on MSNBC talking about the need to ``reengineer Social Security,'' which is a code word for privatization. My colleagues on the other side say they don't support PAYGO and they don't support increasing the debt limit. I guess that means they'd rather play politics than act responsibly to fix the problems that this country faces. President Obama said that fixing this economy would not be easy and it would not happen overnight, and that's clear. He took office and he implemented a bold plan to jump-start the economy, and in the fourth quarter, we saw the U.S. economy grow at a 5.7 percent rate. Mark Zandi, the cofounder of Moody's Economy.com and former McCain economic adviser, said, We're headed in the right direction. The recovery has begun. I think prospects are that job growth will continue and we will have enough job growth to bring up unemployment and then good things will happen. That's a Republican economist. Instead of working together to fix the economy, my Republican colleagues have decided to try and use this recession for political gain. They've obstructed and opposed all efforts to jump-start the economy. They voted against the Recovery Act, which put millions of people to work and saved millions of jobs. They would have rather fired cops and firefighters and teachers. They would have denied new emerging industries the important money to hire more people. They voted against the jobs creation bill and, except for one brave vote, against the health care bill that, according to CBO, would reduce the deficit. Instead, they have dusted off the tired old standbys: corporate tax cuts and privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, they're stuck in the past and are simply repeating the mistakes that put us here in the first place. Madam Speaker, we were elected to do responsible things, to do what's right. We were elected to solve problems and to make this country a better place. Democrats say we cannot default on our debt and that we will reduce that debt through PAYGO, bending the cost curve of health care and freezing spending. I believe we need to look at all parts of Federal spending, including wasteful and unnecessary spending at the Defense Department, but it's clear we need to prioritize our spending. In fact, Democrats say we're going to cut capital gains--something that Republicans have been touting for years--but Republicans are opposing that, too, simply because President Obama is proposing it. Madam Speaker, there is a time and a place for politics, and I get that. But to paraphrase John McCain, sometimes you have to put the country first. It's unfortunate that my Republican colleagues would rather play politics instead of acting responsibly to attack our country's problems. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1065 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1065.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 45, the debt limit and statutory PAYGO resolution. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or a designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the motion except those arising under clause 10 of House rule XXI and provides 1 hour of debate on the motion. The rule divides the question between concurring in the matter preceding title I of the Senate amendment and concurring in titles I and II of the amendment. The first portion of the question shall be considered as adopted. If the second portion fails, then the House will be considered to have made no disposition of the Senate amendment. Madam Speaker, this vote is both historic and difficult. It is historic because it is reinstating the pay-as-you-go law, or PAYGO. This is one tool in the effort to reduce the deficit and return fiscal common sense back to our budget. And it is difficult because this resolution includes a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit. Now, let me begin with the debt limit. None of us are eager to increase the debt limit. But we have a responsibility to take action. The Treasury Department has informed Congress that the United States will reach the current statutory limit on the national debt on February 11. That is next Thursday. If the debt limit is not increased before that date, Treasury will not be able to meet the obligations of the U.S. Government. Simply, Madam Speaker, if we don't act, then we will default. Now, I can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not an option. If the United States defaults, investors will lose confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future. They would likely demand higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk of purchasing Treasury securities. And this would increase the cost of Federal borrowing, result in even greater budget deficits, and require higher taxes and fewer government services. A greater portion of U.S. wealth would be transferred to overseas creditors, to China, India, and Saudi Arabia. And it is also possible that those creditors would demand that the U.S. borrow in other currencies rather than dollars, putting in peril the very value and stability of the American dollar. It is clear that the responsible course of action is to raise the debt limit. It is also clear that we are in this position because of the policies that have been implemented over the past decade. Ten years ago, Madam Speaker, we had a budget surplus. Since then, our country was attacked and the worst recession in our lifetimes took a severe economic toll on our Nation's economy. But we also had two wars that were unpaid for, tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, that were unpaid for, and a prescription drug benefit that was unpaid for. Yes, Republicans and Democrats have had to increase the debt limit because of these policies and events. And unfortunately, we have to do it again today. Now, I know there will be those who want to use this vote as a way to demagogue this issue. There will be those on my side of the aisle who will detail how the policies of the last 8 years put us in this position, and there will be those who use this debate to claim that the recession is the fault of the Democrats. We can have that debate, and we will have that debate. But at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, it is my hope that nobody in this Chamber would put our Nation at such financial and economic risk simply because of politics. My friend from Massachusetts and my colleague, Congressman Richard Neal, said it best in the Rules Committee last night: ``If you voted to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you voted for the tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthiest in this country, or if you voted for the Recovery Act, then you have to vote to raise the debt ceiling.'' Simply put, the American people want us to solve our Nation's problems. And increasing the debt limit is the responsible action. But it doesn't address the underlying problem. And that is the problem of the deficit. That is where statutory PAYGO comes in. Statutory PAYGO requires all new policies be offset. That means paid for. In plain English, we have to pay for what we buy. While it is not the only step we can take, this is a solid step towards fiscal discipline. Now, why is PAYGO so important? It is important because our fiscal health and long-term economic prosperity depend upon it. We must find a balance between short-term deficit spending to speed along our economic recovery with longer-term fiscal discipline. Dick Cheney, Madam Speaker, famously said that deficits don't matter. Well, I believe that they do matter, and I am glad to hear that my Republican friends now agree with Democrats that deficits do matter. I trust that at the end of the day they will vote that way too. But whether you vote for this resolution or not, you must at least admit that President Obama and the Democrats are facing this problem head-on. We are making sure we responsibly meet our financial obligations. We are instituting PAYGO so that we pay for the programs that we are funding. And we expect President Obama to formalize a debt commission soon to make other recommendations to bring down our debt. These are important steps, and these are real steps. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to vote for this rule and this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are impressive. They're impressive in their ability to cover their tracks. They make a mess; they cover their tracks. They make a bigger mess; they cover their tracks. They drove this economy into a ditch. They're trying to cover their tracks. Well, that's fine for playing politics on the House floor, but the facts are a stubborn thing. The facts are that $4 trillion of Bush tax cuts were unpaid, $4 trillion: $700 billion for the Bush prescription drug bill, unpaid for; $3.5 trillion in mandatory revenue costs of the Bush economic collapse that we had to endure because of the lousy economy; record job losses in the Bush economy. Now, the fact of the matter is that we are faced with difficult economic times, and I would like to think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would at least take some responsibility in helping to fix things. My colleague talks about the Recovery Act as if it meant nothing. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs through the end of 2009. An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers also found that the Recovery Act is responsible for about 2 million jobs, and that's not counting the jobs that were saved. In my home city of Worcester alone, 500 teachers and support staff would have been laid off without the Recovery Act; 22 cops would have been laid off and 17 firefighters. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say, Fire them. Fire the teachers. Fire the cops. Fire the firefighters. That's irresponsible. So I also point out that former McCain advisor Mark Zandi said that the stimulus was key to the strong fourth quarter growth in the U.S. economy. We just heard the news from the Department of Commerce that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a better than expected gain. And this is what Mark Zandi, the Republican advisor, said: I think the stimulus was key to the fourth quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus, because the stimulus was very, very important to the fourth quarter. That's a Republican advisor, McCain advisor, Mark Zandi. Now, I would just say, Madam Speaker, that those of us who voted for the Recovery Act have a responsibility to vote ``yes'' on this rule. But I would also say that those who voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that were not paid for, somehow it's okay to ask all of our men and women to sacrifice, but we do nothing. But those wars were not paid for. But if you voted for the Bush tax cuts, the $4 trillion that was unpaid for, at least have the responsibility to come to the floor and do the right thing. So I would urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to vote for this rule and vote for PAYGO. During the Bush years, no one talked about the deficit except to say that it didn't matter. That was Dick Cheney and some of my other colleagues. It does matter. We need to get the deficit under control. We need to help grow this economy. Statutory PAYGO is one way to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Budget Committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), another member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this debate is laughable. During the Republican-controlled Congress and under President Bush from 2002 to 2006 the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. That's just a fact. You can't deny that. Secondly, why are they so against PAYGO? Why are they so against being responsible? Because they have an alternative plan. And we saw the outline of that alternative plan in the Budget Committee the other day, and their plan is to try to reduce the deficit and balance the budget by going after Medicare and Social Security, privatizing Medicare, privatizing Social Security, letting Medicare wither on the vine, going after these programs, which is something they have tried to do time and time again. But let me just say this for the record: while the Democrats control this Congress, we're not going to let you destroy the two most important social programs that have ever been enacted in this country. At this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again I remind my colleagues of $4 trillion in Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for. And during the Republican-controlled Congress under President Bush from 2002 to 2006 the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. I didn't hear any complaints at that time. My colleague talks about selling assets. The problem is the assets they want to sell are Social Security and Medicare, and we don't want any part of it. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 4061, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.